A Horribly, Horribly Fairer Tax Proposal

What’s a fair tax plan? A lot of people say it’s one where the rich — especially that wealthiest 1% — pay for almost everything because they have lots of money. Others say fair is making sure everyone pays at least something, as right now 47% of Americans don’t pay any income tax at all. Still, others say simplicity is what makes a fairer tax plan. For instance, Herman Cain has his 9-9-9 tax plan that would replace our current tax system with a much simpler business flat tax, individual flat tax, and national sales tax, all set to a certain percentage (I forget what). It seems like a neat idea, but if you hold the Book of Revelation upside down, it’s exactly what dog warned us about.

So there are a lot of interesting ideas about taxes, but still nothing that has been proposed is fair enough. It’s like everyone else saw the outer-bounds of extreme fairness and turned back in fear. Not me, though; I fear nothing. Thus, I propose to you the simplest, fairest tax system imaginable. It will be called the “Frank J. Fleming Super Double Extra Fair Tax Plan,” and if it is implemented it will:

1) Instantly balance the budget

2) Give the poor free health care and other benefits

3) Eliminate unemployment

4) Reduce economic disparity, giving less wealth to the wealthiest 1%

These seem like bold claims, but these are the results you accomplish when you truly tap into fairness and ignore the voices in your head screaming, “No! That’s _too_ fair! Turn back!”

So how does it work? It’s extremely simple — so simple even the average congressman should be able to understand it. First, we need to come up with a budget for the next year’s expenses. Here’s the nice thing: There’s no limit on that. If we want lots of government programs and “free” health care and whatnot, we can just go ahead and add it. All we have to do is make sure we price it realistically.

Once we have the yearly budget, we then figure out taxes. This is, once again, extremely simple. We take the cost of the budget for a year and divide that by the number of families in America. And that is how much each family has to pay in taxes. Simple. Fair. Insanely fair, even.

See, with all its wonders and opportunities, America is a lot like Disney World. And Disney World costs the same no matter what your income is. It also costs the same if you go on a lot of rides or only a few. And no one complains about that being unfair. So let’s just break down how much America costs to run and turn that into the cost of an annual pass to America and all its services and entitlements.

First, there is absolutely no reason to balance a budget. This is like going to Disney World or Disneyland or Six Flags and getting on a roller coaster that goes two miles per hour, doesn’t ascend to any heights, doesn’t have great stomach-losing falls, doesn’t turn upside down at breakneck speed and doesn’t appear to be going off the rails …or threaten to plunge you to a fiery death every few seconds.

In fact, the whole thing reminds me of that insanity-inducing ride where they float you around singing “It’s a Small World” over and over and over again.

No, I much prefer MY plan, which is called “Hoarders Without Borders”. In MY plan…those who actually…you know…contribute…to a thing we call “government”, (which is actually a mutual agreement by and among people to share in the cost of mutually beneficial things…related to security, safety, safe passage along roads, bridges, and not floating little boats in a circle)…those people who actually have earned and saved and contribute…get to choose which country they want to help each year.

When a country elects people who make up crazy rules that destroy the “mutuality” of the agreement…the “Hoarders Without Borders” can pack up and simply move to a country that has elected people who want their type.

Because it becomes abundantly clear when they are NOT wanted. The people who get elected to start stealing their stuff…generally find ways to slander them with impunity. They call them greedy, heartless, racist, homophobic, war-mongering, not nuanced, hickish, and “right wing”.

The “don’t want Hoarders Without Borders in OUR country” crowd want to breach the agreement that we MUTUALLY share in the cost of living together. That’s fine. I’m ok with that breach. Just as long as the Hoarders Without Borders can pick up their accumulated AND ALREADY TAXED wealth and go plunk it down in a place that wants them, appreciates them and is willing to play fair and share nicely.

In fact, under my HWB plan…the Takers Without Stakers can Occupy the whole abandoned country when the Hoarders Without Borders crowd leaves. They can live in plastic tents and defecate on abandoned police vehicles and everything.

I don’t believe that much of Europe is a great destination for the HWB crowd, however. Much of it seems to fit better into the Takers Without Stakers model. (who, conveniently also believe in porous, open borders…so this could work as a sort of global deck shuffling)

Eventually, all the Takers Without Stakers will OCCUPY certain places and all the Hoarders Without Borders will live in the other places. And, then we can get off this ride and live happily ever after. It IS a small world after all.

Good proposal. I worked out a similar proposal a few years back. In my concept, governments would operate like cell phone service providers. Individuals would be free to sign up for whichever government you chose, and each government would cost a certain amount in taxes and provide certain benefits.

You could choose to subscribe to a low-tax government which provided only basic law enforcement and other services. Meanwhile, your neighbor could belong to a full-service socialist government which provided employment, health care, retirement benefits, etc. in exchange for higher taxes and restrictions on freedom.

Not all governments would be available in all areas and obviously some would be put out of business pretty quickly. The important part is that each person gets to choose their own government without dictating the government that others must live under.

You can’t make comedy any funnier than this shxx! ROFL! When I am done laughing… I will realize once again I am one of the ones who dole out enough taxes each year to fund a small town of food stamp recipients.

“Once we have the yearly budget, we then figure out taxes. This is, once again, extremely simple. We take the cost of the budget for a year and divide that by the number of families in America. And that is how much each family has to pay in taxes. Simple. Fair. Insanely fair, even.”

At the rate our deficits and debts are going, each family is going to have to sell their first born to make up that amount. But with the rate of college tuitions going up the way they are, that actually may not be a bad thing.

So rough and tough – $4 Trillion dollar budget, with just a few more goodies than the current 3.7 trillion, and 100 Million households, a few more than last number I saw; this works out to $40,000 per year per household. I’m thinking this level of US freedom fee would drive a lot of population out – which of course would increase eash households share, driving out a few more – which would increase each households share…..

You are assuming that all of the costs are fixed and that none are variable. Since the majority of the current budget covers variable cost items (health care, SS, welfare, etc.) the total budget would shrink as people left. Since the people leaving will predominantly be of the ‘Shirkers’ persuasion, this portion of the budget would shrink faster than the proportional reduction in population. Much of the ‘fixed’ costs (military, infrastructure, Department of Redundancy Department, etc.) could probably also be reduced, but would shrink much slower than the proportionate population reduction. Net, it would probably balance out nicely.

There is an unaccounted for problem. How can you tell quickly and surely who has paid their fair share? A solution could be to insert an explode-able chip into every citizen. Those who don’t pay their fair share and don’t leave can be detonated. There is an added benefit, someone being unpleasant could also be detonated. How’s that fair and tranquil?

Mr. Fleming gets at the heart of the matter…which is: it isn’t about the taxes, it’s about the spending.

Every time a Republican / conservative mentions the word tax, it hurts our chances of defeating Obama. Let HIM (Obama) propose HIS lunatic scheme to raise taxes on every American. What we should do, always always always, is to counter with:
“America’s overriding problem is massive government over-spending, $5 trillion in just 3 years of Obama, creating a $15 trillion national debt and causing the first downgrade in our history, and unemployment that is now over 20%. Spending is the problem that has to be solved. No amount of taxes will ever be enough with these people in charge.”

If you are among the 47% who pay no taxes, you get no vote. That way, we instantly end the plebes voting themselves government largess out of working folk’s pockets. Or voting for politicians who will do so on their behalf.

That, and require all politicians to wear a radio-detonated bomb-collar. If they become guilty of serious malfeasance while serving, a simple popular vote would determine their fate.

Excellent idea. John Stuart Mill proposed something similar — a voluntary capitation that rose or fell in tandem with government spending. If you don’t want to pay, fine — you just can’t vote. I would add the following wrinkle: any income tax paid would count against the capitation. That way, taxpayers would have a head start. Those whose tax bill equaled or exceeded the capitation would not owe anything more; the rest would have to make up the difference if they wanted to vote.

Unfortunately, any such system would require repeal of the 24th Amendment.

Believe it or not, fantasy author David Eddings came up with a heck of an idea for keeping government under control.

In this fictitious nation, whenever someone is nominated for a government post, they’re immediately put under armed guard. It’s not to protect them, it’s to keep them from running.

If the person is chosen for a government post, all his/her assets are liquidated and the proceeds are put into the government fund. At the end of the term (strangely enough, few people ever want to return to government), if the government has made a profit, the official gets back his/her original “investment” plus a proportional portion of the profits. If the government loses money, so does the official, because a proportional portion of the loss is taken from their investment.

Oh, and tax rates are nailed in place by a law that can’t be changed (Eddings never explains how they manage that, tho), so politicians can’t monkey with tax rates.

It actually looks–on paper, at least–like it might actually keep government spending under control, if someone could ever actually put something like that in place. The problem is, the Political Class would fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening.

Our Founding Fathers imagined citizen statesmen controlling the reins of government. We now have a professional political class that consider themselves the elite. Many have never worked outside of government. There are solutions to controlling these elite politicians but neither party wants to address the issue. It is my belief that time in office is directly related to corruption and the abuse of power.
One solution is term limits for federal office. A limit of 12 years in combination of terms in the house and Senate would not be unreasonable. I would also support a single term limitation of six years for the presidency.
A second solution is to pass an amendment to the Constitution preventing Congress from passing any law or the president promulgating any executive order that does not equally apply to all United States citizens including themselves and all members of government. No special waivers! No special health care policies! No special tax breaks! No special retirement programs! No subsidies! If it is not available equally to all; it is against the law. Straightening out all the past abuses would keep the federal government busy for years. At the least it would prevent them from causing any further havoc for a while.
A third is to pass a balanced budget amendment. The only way we are going to control government is to put strict financial controls on Washington. My suggestion would be to limit spending to 18% of the GDP two years in the past in a growing economy. (2012 spending would be limited to 18% of GDP in 2010) This would give a two year window for further growth without the government being able to hamstring it with instant increases in spending. In a slow economy the rate should be applied to the lowest GDP in the preceding two years. This would give the economy some respite from the revenue hogs that seem to be unable to control their perverted goal of ever more government spending and control.
The revenue should be collected in some form of a fair or flat tax so everyone has a stake in the game. Any excesses collected would be subtracted from the next years budget.

But that creates a technical problem. When we turn over the elected leaders, unintentionally empower the entrenched bureaucrats, who know the system better than the transient elected politicos.
Think of the State department hacks who go on merrily despite elections.
Need to curb such institutional power along with term limits.

I think 12 years is perfect but I would add the caveat that any former politician that EVER serves in any capacity as a lobbyist would be guilty of a first dergree felony and up to 10 years in prison. We can stop the BS going on with our elected elites but it will require we band together!

If you divide the 2010 federal expenditures of $14 trillion by a population of 307,000,000, everyone would owe about $45,000. I have a better idea, let’s tax the heck out of corporations and real rich people, maybe have nationwide protests…

Actually, the United Methodist Church does something very similar to this, at least the Tennessee Conference does. Each year the Conference forms the next year’s budget. And each year every church reports its expenditures for the prior year (certain categories of expenditures are excluded). The Conference then calculates a rolling, three-year average expenditure of each church and its percentage of the proposed budget. And that is what each church is apportioned to pay the Conference.

If this kind of system was to be adopted for federal taxation, it would work much the same way: Every taxpayer’s AGI on a rolling, three-year average would be calculated as a percentage of the next year’s federal budget, and each taxpayer would be assessed that amount. In other words, we’d get billed by the Treasury rather than calculate our own taxes. As the budget rises, so would our tax bill (at level personal AGIs).

But what about the 50 percent of American adults who pay no taxes? (The much-bandied 47-percent figure is four years old, according to CBS, and has been rising every year for many years.) They would still have to file a 1040 to report AGI and therefore they would be assessed taxes, too. So no one gets a free ride.

The AGI takes deductions into account, but I think these should be dramatically reduced, perhaps down to nothing but personal deductions.

The two main advantages of this assessment system are that no one rides free and it is automatically progressive. The former makes conservatives happy and the latter makes liberals happy.

but they already try that sort of thing. Planned Parenthood is sponsored by the government to place abortion mills in poverty-stricken, minority-majority neighborhoods. 60% of all black babies in New York City are already aborted. The assumption is, by the governing class- ruth bader-ginsburg has some eyebrow-raising comments on the subject- the assumption is, is that that black infant will grow up dependent on welfare, and then subject to the prison system- a drain all around, for that childs’ whole life.

who needs to ship someone off to europe if you can simply make sure they never exist in the first place. Plane tickets cost money, you know?

LOVED this “Modest Proposal!” The 1 percenters are indeed a much maligned group. Laughed at this, but found a funny piece on how to “celebrate” or mock the Occupy Wall Street “event” with a Dinner Party!

I still do not understand why the politicians in charge simply don’t come right out and admit the only ‘fair’ tax proposal they have ever lusted for. Remove the smoke and mirrors and claim forthrightly: “Taxes should be 100% of income.”
Quite simple to implement. For instance, say 350 million lobsters were caught by lobster fishermen this year (I’m just making up a number that I am sure some Ag Dept. functionary could provide in the next quarter, providing it’s disclosure wouldn’t threaten national security), and give everyone in the country a voucher for 1 lobster. Everyone that way gets the benefit of a fair distribution of a resource. If you want more than your 1 lobster p/year, you would exchange some other voucher (or fraction thereof) with someone else who might not want their yearly lobster.
This works with everything – tractors, housing, Amtrak seats, etc. However much is produced each year would be spread around in the form of redeemable coupons or vouchers which could be swapped around by whoever was willing to trade theirs.
As to how production would increase (or decrease), or new breakthroughs would be implemented, we will leave those pesky details for the next Congress to decide….

Actually, this is EXACTLY what the Founders intended, and originally wrote, into the Constitution.

One has to remember that this country started, in part, due to high levels of taxation the people thought was grossly unfair. Thomas Jefferson stated that “The power to tax is the power to destroy”.

The Founders recognized that ,at times, the Federal Government would need to raise taxes. The Founders permitted the Federal Government to raise taxes by first having Congress determine exactly what the need was, and then apportioning that sum among the several states, based on population.

If this sounds difficult, it was intended to be. The Founders intention was to, again in Jefferson’s words, “bound up the Government in the chains of the Constitution”. The Founders knew that Federal taxing power had to be limited to ensure freedom!

The Founder’s also felt the only fair tax was a tax on consumption, in that a tax on consumption was self limiting. If the Government raised the tax too high, the people would purchase less, thereby limiting the revenue.

Texas already budgets similar to this: the Comptroller announces what the expected tax revenue is; the Legislature is bound by it. That’s that.

The US Government was originally supposed to be that tax: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” In modern English, a tax must be in proportion to population, not the wealth or income of the population. Repeal the 16th Amendment.